JUDGMENT : Guman Singh, J.—The case has come up for admission. Both the parties agreed that appeal be disposed of at admission stage. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record of the miscellaneous appeal. 3. This appeal has been preferred by Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jhunjhunu (Raj.), in Claim Petition No. (216 of 2002) 103 of 2005, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,50,040 was awarded in favour of claimants-respondents who are dependants of the deceased Sheesh Ram, who was travelling on the roof of the bus and died as a result of fall from the roof of the bus when the driver of the bus applied brakes. 4. The appellant R.S.R.T.C. has challenged the award on the ground that the deceased Sheesh Ram was also liable for contributory negligence as he was travelling on the roof of the bus without any authority. 5. The learned Counsel submits that the deceased Sheesh Ram was an employee of R.S.R.T.C. and was not required to take any ticket while travelling in the bus and he was always aware not to travel on the roof of the bus and as such he was liable for 50 per cent contributory negligence. In support of his argument, he placed reliance on Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation v. Hussain 2007 WLC 25 and a judgment of Division Bench of this High Court passed in Rajasthan State Road Trans. Corporation v. Shashi Kala Vyas D.B. Civil Spl. Appeal No. 53 of 1996; decided on 12.12.2002, wherein the passenger travelling on the roof of the bus was found liable for the contributory negligence of 25 per cent. 6. Learned Counsel for the claimants supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the evidence led by both the parties during the inquiry and has rightly attributed negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and no contributory negligence can be found on the part of the deceased. 7. 6. Learned Counsel for the claimants supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into account the evidence led by both the parties during the inquiry and has rightly attributed negligence on the part of the offending vehicle and no contributory negligence can be found on the part of the deceased. 7. Having considered the submissions and going through the award as well as the record of the case, it is revealed that at the time of accident the deceased was travelling on the roof of the bus and he was an employee of R.S.R.T.C, though it has been argued that the bus being packed, there was no way out except to travel on roof as asked by conductor of the bus and hence, there is no liability for contributory negligence of the deceased but in the facts and circumstances of this case, it is revealed that the deceased was employee of R.S.R.T.C. He was not required to take ticket and if the bus was packed, he could wait for the other bus and was supposed to be more vigilant in observing the rules. Thus, there is no escape but to adjudge him liable for 25 per cent contributory negligence. The judicial pronouncements submitted by learned Counsel for appellant are pertinent on the point. Accordingly, the award deserves to be modified. 8. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified to the extent that appellant shall be liable for 75 per cent of the amount, i.e., for Rs. 3,37,530 instead of Rs. 4,50,040 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of appeal, i.e., 19.11.2005, subject to the condition that the amount shall be paid within three months from the date of this order, failing which, the amount shall entail interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum and the rest of the award shall remain undisturbed. This appeal stands disposed of.